On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: > 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the > > software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it > > under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as > > dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might > > be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a > > dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. > > > Hi. > > My understanding is: > > 1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need > to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code.
Two sets, actually, that interssect for the most portion of them. > 2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or > GPL. > > So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to > re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however > does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice, > right? If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. Anyway, it's a moot point since the SFLC found a much more polite way of converting to the GNU GPL without needing to remove it. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
